1 / 43

Transforming Meteorological Forecasting: The Evolution of Norway's Profet

Learn about the evolution of meteorological forecasting in Norway through Profet, its innovations, intentions, usage, verification processes, and transition to Arome for enhanced accuracy and efficiency. Discover the future plans to further enhance forecasts.

kasia
Download Presentation

Transforming Meteorological Forecasting: The Evolution of Norway's Profet

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Beyond the PROFET Juergen Schulze MET Norway

  2. Who's MET Norway?

  3. PROFET ?

  4. PROFF Field Editor

  5. Prior to PROFET

  6. Text forecast • 50000 Pages of Text forecasts a year • 5-20 people 24/7

  7. TV forecast

  8. Edited Meteogram • Offshore forecast • Subjective Point forecasts

  9. Auto Meteogram

  10. ICAO Products

  11. And then came yr.no

  12. yr.no • Launched in September 2007 • Free data policy • 5th biggest weather website on the planet • Interpolation on demand • 9 mio places registered • Top=6.9 mio unique users/week • Point forecasts obsolete

  13. YR Heatmap

  14. PROFET … the intentions Bringing the forecaster into the production chain

  15. More intentions Creating products from a single source

  16. Even more intentions Forecast consistency by using a single source

  17. How PROFET works • Choosing the “correct” model • Fixing systematic errors in the model fields

  18. Usage – Intended • Intention to point out dangerous errors

  19. Usage – Intended … and real • Intention to point out dangerous errors • Used to adapt the model output to fit the forecasters opinion

  20. Usage - frequency

  21. VERIFICATION

  22. Equitable Threat Score (ETS) • Threat Score: TS= a / ( a + b + c ) • Hits expected by chance: E = (a+b) ( a+c ) / n • ETS = ( a – E ) / ( a + b +c – E )

  23. Verification: Precipitation 1h precipitation / summer 24h precipitation / summer APPROVED DATASET / DEFAULT MODEL

  24. Precipitation +30h forecast BIAS [mm / 24h ] SUMMER WINTER ALL CASES DEFAULT MODEL 0.8 0.5 APPROVED DATASET 0.7 0.7 EDITED CASES DEFAULT MODEL 4.2 0.8 APPROVED DATASET 3.7 1.7 Verification Systematic error

  25. Verification: comments • Edited forecasts are more pessimistic than the model • Forecasters are able to identify situations where the model has considerable errors, but editing the fields is not the optimal way to distribute this knowledge • Situation has changed since the beginning. The default model has been improved by postprocessing the dataset

  26. And the production chain? More and more statistical and parametrisation fixes

  27. Temperature? • High resolution height model (50m horizontal) • Inhomogeneous • Deep valleys

  28. Temperature? • High resolution height model (50m horizontal) • Inhomogeneous • Deep valleys • Editing forbidden

  29. Precipitation • Use of prob forecasts by median • Editing is not WYSIWYG • Post processing is time cost

  30. Wind • Statistical corrections for mountains and coastlines

  31. Chosing the model ? Just two times a day, night shift has not the capacity

  32. Single point of production? • Auto text forecasts – only at high sea. • Norway is quite Inhomogeneous – auto text did not succeed over land

  33. Consistency then? • Still TV forecast produced by table • ICAO Products made by hand • Text forecasts still 50K pages

  34. Consistency - yr.no/kart vs yr.no

  35. Consistency - yr.no/kart vs yr.no

  36. Consistency - yr.no/kart vs yr.no

  37. Why stopping right now? • New Supercomputer – New Model • AROME 2.5 km High res model over Norway • Updates 6 or 8 times a day • High res postprocess chains – time intensive with editing

  38. The final reason • Moving PROFET to AROME would cost a recognizable amount of infrastructural change – due to the implementation of NetCDF as the new grid format

  39. What next? The Forecaster is off the production chain again

  40. Meteorologen live • Making direct comments on the situation • Model/run/grid independent • Issuing geolocalised warnings, alerts, etc directly into the final product • Maximum latency of 10 minutes

  41. Implementation • Phase 0: Soon • Using Common Technology for communication (Twitter/Blog) • Phase 1: September 2013 • Adapting existing infrastructure to a set of the new requirements • Phase 2: Not yet set • Complete new infrastructure with a postGIS database engine for the geolocalisation

More Related